Thread by @gauravsabnis

This is such a hilariously unhinged reaction from the HAF to losing the frivolous lawsuit against Vishwanath, Truschke etc.

The bizarre lie-laced insistence that they didn't really lose the case they lost seems more for donors than general audience.

hinduamerican.org/press/false-st…

Given that @Hindus4HR @AudreyTruschke et al said nothing that was even remotely defamatory but rather in public interest, AND given the high bar for defamation in the US, these expensive lawsuits are a combination of intimidating opponents and grifting supporters. Total sham.

The intimidation element is the chief one. It started with their making the DGH conference a worldwide headline topic. Hoping to just scream and rant their critics into silence. But academics, especially US academics, are literally the last people who will fold to this tactic.

So then HAF etc go for lawsuits that would be expensive for the academics to fight. And act as a deterrent to others against speaking up. It's a tactic used by many fascist sympathizers in the US, including Chinese and Russians. Threat of the bankrupting civil lawsuit.

But they know, we know, everyone knows that the lawsuits will be thrown out. At least in the US. Free Speech protections here are still solid. A first year law student could my cousin Vinny such a case into dismissal.

Here's where the grift element comes in.

The hilarious thing is, HAF itself nails the reason for why such a lawsuit is doomed. They are a public figure.

SCOTUS has literally ruled that you can even say that a public figure fucked their mother (not kidding, that's literally the case), and even THAT is protected speech.

But a press release from @HinduAmerican claiming the dismissal was just "procedural" when it was in fact very fundamental to how defamation law works in America highlights the grift element. This is a way for some people to make money from milking the rage of rich sanghis.

There is a lot of money in being an agent for sanghism in the US or the West in general. You just create a social media identity centered around loving Modi and focusing on the very limited narrow RSS philanthropy. Then you ask for money to sue evil anti-neshnul libbus.

PROFIT!

I love the scholarship of @AudreyTruschke but there really is no reason she should be a household name among Hindu uncles on Whatsapp as some villain. But sanghi IT cell, HAF etc NEED some foreign target, preferably white woman, to fundraise against. Wendy Doniger is 80+ now.

But the number of people in my Indian circles who have said to me "I saw on Twitter you met Audrey Truschke" in the same voice that someone would say "I saw on Twitter you met Charles Manson" shows the level of the Whatsapp university hate propaganda. To fundraise off.

In the previous generation, sanghis did their activism and fund raising and random grifting in the US by fixating on Dr. Wendy Doniger. But she is in her 80s. So they moved on to Audrey. Their tried and tested "this white woman hates India 😡😡" fundraising templates.

Few messages are easier to sell in India and get white collar Indian men riled up about than the notion that some foreigner, especially a foreigner woman, especially an outspoken foreigner woman saying something that is "insulting India" and "exoticising" us.

It sells itself.

I'm pretty sure it won't escape the notice of Judge Amit P. Mehta how @HinduAmerican is straight up lying in their press release about what his judgement said. Thankfully for them, this lie of theirs is covered by the first amendment. But it's not good legal strategy.

The judge did NOT say the defendants made false statements. It was HAF that claimed they could "prove" some false statements that must be withdrawn. Judge said those statements are not the kind that need to be proven true to be said, and can't be sued even if false. 🤷🏽🤷🏽

This from when the Supreme Court literally said you can even falsely say a public figure fucked their mother and even that is protected from civil suits, is why @HinduAmerican lawyers know they will never win such suits. Why it's just about intimidation and grifting.

The five defendants in this case were fortunate to be financially stable as well as get pro bono legal help from well meaning folks who saw the case as the assault on free speech that it was.

But not everyone might be that fortunate. Why @TheJusticeDept needs to investigate HAF

HAF tried the same logic that Jerry Falwell did. This statement is false, we can prove it's false, and hence it is defamation and a tort.

SCOTUS then & Judge Mehta now said, doesn't matter unless you prove they knew it was false but said it anyway, which you can't for this.

Basically in America, even if a public figure can prove that a statement about them is false, it is still allowed and the onus is on the public figure to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the false statement was made intentionally and with disregard for the truth, a high bar.

That is not "procedural". That is pretty damn fundamental to the American constitution and free speech case law.

And even Jerry Falwell ended up agreeing with the judgment by the end of his life. That he did not have a case against Hustler for saying he fucked his mom. 🤷🏽🤷🏽

Unless sanghis manage to convince America to fundamentally change its free speech laws to protect the wee hurted egos of sanghi uncles and aunties because some people say mean things about sanghis, these lawsuits are just intimidation plus grift. Only lawyers & HAF make money.

Internal scuffles, most likely.

No matter how they try to spin it on Twitter, @HinduAmerican knows it's a comprehensive & humiliating defeat. An expensive one. Blame game internally must be on in full force cos someone was sold a case that didn't exist.

https://twitter.com/rajarshipurwar/status/1605847466842107904?t=StVLibgB2Q3N3Ark0znzww&s=19

This @SuhagAShukla is supposedly a lawyer. Case didn't even make it to trial. Humiliating. But predictable for anyone who understands even the basics of the American legal system.

Why HAF feels like a grift.

No one with a JD could have seriously thought this ever was a case.

This thread tears down HAF's almost comically dishonest statement.

https://twitter.com/Dialogues4Demo/status/1605766153539768320?t=VlYGsIqNgsCOxDfWY-sEUw&s=19

Why anti #SLAPP laws are the need of the hour.